The paper—published in “Nature Cities”—is cited at the bottom of the article, but is locked behind a paywall.
Posted by Ollyfer
The paper—published in “Nature Cities”—is cited at the bottom of the article, but is locked behind a paywall.
Posted by Ollyfer
4 Comments
Validating my priors that every city whose population within 20km of the city center exceeds 100k should have a metro.
> The paper—published in “Nature Cities”—is cited at the bottom of the article, but is locked behind a paywall.
[Arxiv to the rescue](https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08280#:~:text=Despite%20the%20evident%20drawbacks%2C%20car,%2C%20economic%2C%20and%20environmental%20benefits.)
I find this hard to believe given how successful tram networks in France have been.
The value of a city is in large parts due to its density. A tram might be better than a bike lane or a car lane, but it’s ultimately still taking space that is better put to productive use as non-transit.
That’s why subways win once you are big enough to need transit: Same capacity, minimal surface space wasted. And typically faster speeds too, as there’s minimal need to slow down or care about running over cars and pedestrians. Until we are all ready to build on a borg cube and the vertical space is just as wasteful as surface, this will be true. it’s just a matter of having the money to bury the transit or the highway.
Now imagine how funny it would be if Amsterdam decided to density, but do that by creating an large, multi level underground bike transit labyrinth. A more modest plan than the crazy linear city in the desert.